A Collection of Responses to Stanford&#39;s Organic Food Study: Organic Food Is Worth It

Are organic foods healthier? Are they worth the extra money at the supermarket? In the wake of a media frenzy revolving a September 2012 “study” by Stanford University claiming to answer these questions, many people were left wondering.

The Stanford paper made headlines across the media-sphere. Many read something along the lines of, “Are Organic Foods Worth the Extra Cost?” — which frustrated many proponents of organics.

It’s important to note that the paper wasn’t a new study with fresh data on organic foods. Rather, it was a “meta-study” in which no original research was conducted. Researchers compiled data from multiple past studies on organic food. The benefits of organic produce were investigated by the research team — with an emphasis on health — and compiled in the paper published in the September 4, 2012, issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

While the findings did point out that organic food can lower the risk of exposure to pesticides by 30 percent, many media outlets focused on the part of the study concluding that there’s no significant health benefit from eating organic foods. Several story lines suggested that organics are really no better than conventional foods, and Stanford’s own website said researchers “did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.” (This important point about pesticide exposure was often covered as an afterthought in reports about the study.)

Shortly after the first round of media attention hit, a second round — this time made up of impassioned responses to the Stanford study and the undeserved attention the study received — showed up. For instance, Why the Stanford University Organic Food Study Missed the Mark by Kimberly Lord Stewart argues that the study “marginalized the health status of organic food and took an extremely narrow view” and that the Stanford research “fails to mention two significant studies that do indeed show that organic foods are higher in vitamin C, antioxidants, polyphenols by 60 to 80 percent of the time, and vitamin A and protein is higher in organic foods 50 percent of the time when compared to conventional foods.”

Plus, fewer chemicals in food should automatically be seen of as a much healthier alternative to conventional produce. According to the Cornucopia Institute, “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”

Although the media spin might lead you to believe otherwise, the authors of the Stanford University study stated that their intention was not to deter individuals from buying and eating organically. According to one of the study’s co-authors, Crystal Smith-Spangler, “this is information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget and other considerations.”

Another angle in this conversation is simply about how we define “health.” Is health just about vitamin levels, or is it also about healthy communities, a healthy environment, healthy farmers, healthy animals, chemical-free living, and more? Keeping business local and buying directly from sustainable farmers is a safe way to know where your food comes from and in what condition. Animals that are properly cared for and vegetables that are grown in clean soil will produce higher-quality, better-tasting food — points made in Mark A. Kastel’s editorial Thinking Outside the Processed Foods Box — Health and Safety Advantages of Organic Food.

Organic foods may have no beneft on physical health, but quite obviously have a strong effect on the mental health of their advocates.... The author states that pesticides in foods have known effects on causing cancer.. False... Hi dose exposures in lab rats may cause cancer there, but not in us at the doses routinely obtained from food. That's the important point....The author states that certain nutrients are higher in organics, but can't show any proof that that's actually healthier for us. She merely uses the faulty logic that " if one is good, then two MUST be better."...Organics are cheaper to produce when you're growing your own, but probably not worth the extra price if you are buying them. Of course we can't put a price on that warm & fuzzy feeling....Once again, I make these comments to correct the pseudoscience that can instill fear in those who must buy our industrially produced food. It is perfectly safe. Just look around you. We're all stronger and healtheir than we were even one generation ago. That's why Soc. Sec is going broke! ;-)

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

MOTHER EARTH NEWS is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. MOTHER EARTH NEWS helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.00 (USA only).